[Bug fortran/102043] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses, gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/102043] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses, gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #35 from Mikael Morin --- A little status update. I have pushed the latest patch attached to this PR a little further, but not far enough to reduce the number of testsuite regressions to 0. I plan to submit it for gcc-13, but it

[Bug fortran/104570] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.cc:3681 since r12-7217-g57da34939703a6e6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104570 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/104570] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.cc:3681 since r12-7217-g57da34939703a6e6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104570 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/104228] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in df_install_ref, at df-scan.cc:2294 since r8-3589-g707905d0773e5a8e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104228 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/103789] ICE when providing kind argument to mask{l,r}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/103789] ICE when providing kind argument to mask{l,r}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- maskr is the same. Fix probably similar to PR87851.

[Bug fortran/103789] New: ICE when providing kind argument to mask{l,r}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103789 Bug ID: 103789 Summary: ICE when providing kind argument to mask{l,r} Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin --- *** Bug 103671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/103671] arrays with negative strides are wrongly passed as argument.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103671 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/103671] New: arrays with negative strides are wrongly passed as argument.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103671 Bug ID: 103671 Summary: arrays with negative strides are wrongly passed as argument. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/103472] ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:4527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103472 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin --- I’m reading the previous comments again: (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > So to clarify the ARRAY_REF constraints - there is currently no way to > construct a valid ARRAY_REF where an index

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51891|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51839|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21) > (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #17) > > Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?) > > Helping graphite

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51791|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/97896] [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15) > One possibility would be to extend the patch Sandra posted at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055563.html > to scalarization. Probably

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51787|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 51787 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51787=edit draft patch This "fixes" the problem of negative index access, and adjusts vector subscript handling, so that

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > > > Is there any case where the frontend would make 'data' point into the > > middle of the array and

[Bug fortran/102043] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/97896] [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > Well, it doesn’t fix comment #5. :-( Pilot error, it does fix it.

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > rough patch > Well, it doesn’t fix comment #5. :-(

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 49609 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49609=edit rough patch OK, I understand better the problem. It’s not a bug that the kind argument is not used to produce code. It

[Bug fortran/97896] [11 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_assignment_1, at fortran/trans-expr.c:11156

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97896 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

<    1   2   3